Message-ID: <ED86D6B5-E5F8-4965-BE59-C90535EA543A@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 23:49:27 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Laurentiu Tudor <tudor.laurentiu.oss@...il.com>,
 Aleksandrs Vinarskis <alex.vinarskis@...il.com>
CC: "Kemp, Bryan" <Bryan.Kemp@...l.com>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
 "linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
 "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "Tudor, Laurentiu" <Laurentiu.Tudor1@...l.com>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Peter de Kraker <peterdekraker@...to.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: Add support for X1-based Dell XPS 13 9345

On October 2, 2024 10:06:41 PM GMT+03:00, Laurentiu Tudor <tudor.laurentiu.oss@...il.com> wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>On 10/1/24 20:57, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 18:23, Laurentiu Tudor
>> <tudor.laurentiu.oss@...il.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Alex,
>>> 
>>> On 10/1/24 19:09, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 02:47, Kemp, Bryan <Bryan.Kemp@...l.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Fascinating topic. First of all, thank you Alex for the explanation of your logic, and thank you as well for the work on the device tree for the XPS 13. I understand completely how the Dell naming/numbering scheme is confusing. The shortened version down to just the model number could also be confusing. For example, there is an XPS 9520 as well as a Latitude 9520. The 9 basically translates to "premium" not a specific line of business. For what it is worth, I would prefer the dell-xps13-9345 naming and I think we can have to be mindful to avoid a naming collision in a decade.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the input, it's really nice to have Dell's perspective as well.
>>>> That's a good point with latitude, I was only aware of 5XXX/7XXX
>>>> naming for that one... which I guess further highlights the confusing
>>>> naming scheme.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, completely agree. We will raise this internally so that in the
>>> future we'll do a better job at naming platforms.
>>> 
>>>> I will re-spin with `dell-xps13-9345` and `dell,xps13-9345`
>>>> respectively as proposed then, unless there will be any other feedback
>>>> on the V3 series before tomorrow.
>>> 
>>> Great, thanks!
>>> 
>>> Couple of points:
>>>    - i'm thinking that maybe at a later point, as more dell platforms are
>>> getting added, we can re-organize the device trees, e.g. have a common
>>> 'dell-xps.dtsi' which gets inherited by specific platforms
>> 
>> Completely agree. Although I'm not sure about the name - analyzing
>> DSDT of Tributo it seems there are quite a few more things defined
>> than particular laptop utilizes, eg. support for x3 TypeC and x3 USB
>> MP while current device only has x2 TypeC and x1 USB MP. I believe
>> these are either leftovers of examples being provided to Dell which
>> were just left there, or ACPI tables being (at least partially?)
>> shared between multiple platforms - eg. Inspiron 14" 7441/Latitude 14"
>> 5455 etc. In the latter case (unfortunately cannot test myself due to
>> lack of hw) perhaps the .dtsi can be inherited by more than just XPS
>> family. If you/Kemp Bryan could share some insight on that already wrt
>> to how much is shared (if any), I can split to dtsi/dts with upcoming
>> re-spin. Otherwise indeed can be done when the next platform is being
>> introduced.
>
>Regarding ACPI, hard to tell as I'm not familiar with what's exposed in there... there might be legacy / inconsistent things.
>
>For now, I'd suggest to just stick with what we have at the moment and build on that. More to the point, have the device tree for xps13-9345 accepted and derive from it, if / when at some point in time similar platforms show up.
>
>>>    - just noticed that the firmware paths point to something like
>>> ".../dell/tributo/...". Should we reconsider these too? Maybe something
>>> like ".../dell/xps/..." would be better?
>> 
>> Yes, will drop 'tributo' altogether. Perhaps "../dell/xps13-9345"
>> then, to match the proposed compat? 
>
>
>Sounds good to me.
>
>> Also when Divo/Huracan/Perfomante
>> will come out, those are still "XPS" but I would guess will have
>> different firmware files, so maybe it makes sense to be a bit more
>> precise with the naming?
>
>On naming, there are ongoing internal discussions to make them more coherent.
>
>Apart from that, could you please Cc: us if you plan to submit stuff to linux-firmware?

Only Dell, the final copyright holder and product owner can submit files to linux-firmware.


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Powered by blists - more mailing lists